Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Where are all the bid stealers? Two nights after top-seeded Northern Iowa punched its dance ticket, and one night after top-seeded Old Dominion earned the Colonial's automatic bid, Butler destroyed Wright State 70-45 at Hinkle Fieldhouse in the final of the Horizon conference tourney.

The Bulldogs' blowout victory one of several key results on what was a busy day for major and mid-major bubble teams. Most of those teams are from the Big East and the A-10, both of which kicked off their tourneys on Tuesday. Here's a quick recap:

In the Big East...UConn seemingly wasn't aware -or didn't care - that it was playing for its at-large life against St. John's in its Big East opener. The Huskies absolutely mailed it in against the much hungrier Red Storm, losing 73-51 and leaving (a retiring?) Jim Calhoun pretty speechless at the podium afterwards. In more important Big East news, both South Florida and Seton Hall each won their first round games to set up a pair of potential win-and-maybe-in games on Wednesday. Dominique Jones and the Bulls had no problem with DePaul in their first round game, and the Pirates escaped - after nearly blowing a 29-point lead - to beat Providence 109-106. South Florida faces Georgetown in the early game at the Garden on Wednesday, and Seton Hall takes on Notre Dame in the night session. St. John's will face Marquette, and Cincinnati - who barely survived a scare against Rutgers - will take on Louisville in the other two second round games.

In the A-10...Charlotte's late-season skid ended with a loss to UMass in the first round of the A-10 tourney. Rhode Island beat St. Joseph's and Dayton beat George Washington in their first round games. The Rams face Saint Louis and the Flyers take Xavier in the quarterfinals on Friday.

Besides Butler, there were two other automatic bids handed out Tuesday night as well. Derick Nelson scored 36 points to lead Oakland to a 76-64 win over IUPUI in the Summit final, and Josh White hit the game-winner with 22 seconds left for North Texas, as the Mean Green beat Troy 66-63 in the Sun Belt final. Elsewhere, top-seeded Weber State and fourth-seeded Montana each won their semifinals to advance to tomorrow's Big Sky title game.

The BreakdownLast Four InSan Diego State, Washington, Mississippi, South Florida

67 comments:

Can you please explain your logic for having Gonzaga as your top rated 7 seed? I'm looking at all your 7 and 8 seeds' resumes and every single one of them has a better resume than the Zags.

They have exactly one good win and that came against Wisconsin in November. Their 2nd and 3rd best wins came against St. Mary's a team who just spanked them when it mattered the most and a team that might not have even gotten in the field if not for that win. A few weeks ago their wins over Illinois and Cincinnati might've looked good, but they don't any more. On top of their lack of quality wins they have 2 horrendous losses against (#175) Loyola Marymount and (#206) San Francisco.

If you're going by their resume and not their prior hisory, they should either be one of the last 8 seeds or one of the first 9 seeds.

There are always going to be warts on the resumes of teams that are on the 7-9 lines, but we like Gonzaga to be a 7 for a couple of reasons (some of which you mentioned). They have a big OOC win (Wisconsin), they have 13 road/neutral wins, four Top 50 road/neutral wins, and they won the WCC regular season title. Their wins over Illinois and Cincinnati don't look as good anymore, but their wins over St. Mary's are looking better than ever. They also have a road win at Memphis that is looking better now than it did back in early February. And finally, they're Gonzaga. Prior history isn't supposed to play a role in this year's seeding, but the committee is made up of people who are used to seeing the Zags in the field. That will help them in the selection room and we have to give them credit for it too. For all of those reasons, we can't see Gonzaga falling below the 7 line.

It's funny how in a year with such a "weak" bubble that so far no bid stealers have come in to shrink the bubble. Now the chances for some of these teams to get in is getting much better when in most years they would already be preparing for the NIT.

Why does a team who hasn't lost in 14 games and who is in the top 25 and has a good RPI (Utep), keep going down in seed every time you release a new bracket. I could see if they were hurting themselves with losses, but that's not the case. I respect you guys, but your way off, if they don't win the tourney they are at the lowest a 9 or 10 if they win they are a 6 or 7.

Hi Guys, Love your work. You put a lot of effort into this and it's a pleasure to read. Still hanging on to hope that Minnesota could have a snowballs chance, if the unthinkable happens and Northwestern should beat Purdue, which they have two out of the last three, and Minnesota gets by Penn State and Michigan State and meets Northwestern in the semi's - is that enough? Or would Minnesota need the Purdue game, provided they win of course, to get a decent chance at a bid?

Guys on the last bracket criticized my use of the top 180 RPI to point out how awful Illinois and Ohio state were, in comparison to how they are thought of, because 180 is not a standardly-used number. My point was that maybe the standard numbers lie. So i looked further, dipping into the standard numbers...

Illinois is 5-12 vs the top 100. FIVE AND 11. They aren't just under .500 there, they are at .3125winning percentage. Can you really consider a team with a .3125 Winning percentage against the top 100 teams a legitimate contender for a berth as one of the top 48(the top 12 seeds tend to include the entirety of the bubble teams, 12 seeds is 48 teams). They are 5-8 vs the top 75... This looks much better, doesn't it? The only issue with that is it doesn't include the 5 losses against sub-75 RPI teams. They are 4-8 vs top 50 teams. Is that impressive? 3-4 vs top 25 teams, but their 3 wins include 2 that will not count against the teams they beat because of injuries, (wisconsin without leuer, michigan state without lucas) So they are really 1-4 vs top 25, with a couple of incredibly questionable wins.

My problem with rankings against the top 25-50-100 teams is the same, in essence, as your problem with my using the top 180, it's an incomplete stat. The top 180 doesn't include good wins, the top 25 excludes bad losses. So I'll find a different stat that is more inclusive... How about top 50ish wins/losses outside of top 75? This includes all the wins that are mostly good, and all the losses that are mostly bad.

Again, Huge advantage seton hall... Don't see how any number of wins vs. top 50 teams, whether it's 2(now) or 4(with things falling together for a finals run in the big 10) could overcome the fact that Illinois has 5 more bad losses than seton hall.

Conneticut 4-2.

Again, HUGE advantage Uconn...

Memphis 3-3(includes win vs 57 oakland)

Advantage memphis.

VCU 3-4

Advantage VCU.

Ole Miss 2-1

Advantage Ole Miss, Same as seton hall, how can you put illinois in over them, when Illinois has 4 more bad losses?

All of what you're saying is probably why Illinois has such a weak RPI.

I think Minnesota and Northwestern are at serious risk of losing in the first round of the Big Ten Tournament to Penn State and Indiana. Minnesota needed a buzzer beater to beat PSU last time, and NW's defense has completely collapsed. At first glance, Michigan looks at risk too but Iowa is such an awful team away from Carver-Hawkeye.

USF and Seton Hall showed some serious warts in their first round games. Sure they won, but USF had 56 of its 58 points in the paint or at the free throw line. That means, against THE worst major conference team in America, they made exactly ONE jumpshot. And while Seton Hall's offense was the perfect matchup for Providence's non-defense, their own defense cost them dearly.

Finally, Butler's huge win was a hollow victory. Sure they went 21-0 vs the Horizon League, but does anyone expect them not to be the most likely 5/12 upset? Their record against major conference opponents is really really weak.

UTEP's fall in our bracket over the last week is based on UAB's struggles down the stretch. UTEP was a single digit seed when those UAB wins really meant something; now they don't look as great and now the Miners have just one win over a team currently in our bracket. Even that team - Memphis - is in as a bid-stealer, not as an at-large worthy team.

Saint Louis is ahead of Wichita State because the Bilikens have a chance to pick up two more quality wins in the quarters (URI) and semis (Temple) of the A-10 tournament. Wichita is done for the season and finished with just one Top 50 win (UNI), two bad losses down the stretch (Evansville, Bradley) and a double-digit BracketBuster loss at Utah State. They don't have a resume worthy of an at-large. Saint Louis doesn't yet, either, but they can get there with a couple more wins.

To be fair, Depaul only has 1 loss vs teams outside the top 151, Indiana has 4. And you can poke holes in ANY teams wins... But the fact is they still won the game. Is shooting percentage from outside the paint really a reliable statistic to rank teams by?

Sounds like "Anonymous" is a Michigan fan hating on Illinois and Ohio State.

Being an Illini fan I personally don't think we have the stats to get in, but with all of the other bubble teams so weak we've shown we can knock off the big boys (Clemson, Vandy, MSU, Wisconsin, OT loss to Gonzaga).

Does the committee want someone who can knock off the 100th best team in the country? or the 25th? Win vs. Wisconsin and the Illini are in.

Dave, actually I'm not a michigan fan, I just think that illinois's schedule is exceptionally weak, a fact that is hidden by the fact that they have 6 conference wins vs teams ranked 189, 196, and 213 in the RPI.

Ohio State does not have a good PI resume. Outside of a few cases, primarily from highly ranked non-BCS schools, though, the AP poll's top 8 has been an excellent predictor of the #1 and #2 seeds. Look where Ohio State is there. I know Louisville 2005 was brought up as a counter argument before, but that was CUSA Louisville, who got a #4 seed despite being ranked #4. That team lived up to its AP ranking, too, by making the final 4.

I just defended Ohio State's seeding, but I won't defend Illinois. Teams with RPIs in the mid 70s just aren't picked as at-large teams, outside of extenuating circumstances. New Mexico '99 was ranked AP Top 25 all year long. Air Force '04 was a conference champion above other teams with typical at-large RPI rankings. I see Illinois as behind Georgia Tech and Seton Hall. If quality wins are the only factor, William & Mary has almost as much of a case as Illinois.

In any other year, Illinois would not be in the conversation. The truth is Illinois has beaten the people they're supposed to beat in the Big 10. It's not their fault that Iowa, PSU, Indiana, Michigan etc are horrible.

They played a strong OOC schedule with Vandy, Clemson, Missouri, and Gonzaga.

I'm a realist in thinking that Illinois won't be in, but I don't understand how teams can be penalized for other teams playing poorly, affecting the SOS

Speaking for OSU if they win the Big 10 I think they should be the last #1.

dave, beating the dregs of your BCS conference is not enough to get an at large bid. you need to do more against the upper half of your BCS conference to get a bid. illinois will have its shot to do that this week. if not, then hello NIT.

Count me among those that thinks that Illinois' record is much worse than every other at large team. They have 4 good wins, two of which came at the tail end of a 5 game winning streak and got them in the discussion, and one OK win over Wofford.

Besides those 5 wins, none of the rest of their wins are against teams that are good, and most of those are against teams that are downright terrible. In addition, they have THIRTEEN losses. Most to quality enough teams, though a few to questionable teams, but they've reached the UConn tipping point where you can't excuse that many losses.

That five game winning streak (3 of which were wins over Iowa, PSU, Indiana) is the only reason we're talking about them. It got them in the national discussion, and they somehow managed to stay in it despite tanking the rest of the way.

I agree 100% that beating the bottom teams in any conference shouldn't get you into the tournament.

But with how watered down the NCAA this league is year, beating all the teams below you and knocking off a few of the big boys may be enough.

What doesn't make much sense to me is beating a team in December that is ranked #1 is nearly worthless if they fall on their face in March. They were #1 for a reason in December, which means they were a good team. How can the level at which a team is playing in March diminish a win in December?

This doesn't apply to Illinois, but I keep hearing people say "This win doesn't look as good as it used to".

Dave, my theory would be that in most cases like you are saying, where a team is ranked number 1, or 2, or even 10, and then falls off a cliff, the reason is that instead of suddenly sucking, the team was just always bad, and we just didn't know it yet.

It looks, for example, like texas(who was #1) had only played a couple of games(in their undefeated start) in which the 50th best team could be expected to be challenged, and that's Pitt and UNC, and we obviously know UNC sucks,so is it more likely that texas was the best team, but got worse, or just hadn't really been tested enough to be revealed as mediocre?

being #1 in december doesn't mean much if the team never should have been #1 in december. the polls are notorious for being way off and they are even further off the first couple months of the year when they are based largely on guesswork.

unc was preseason #4 and shouldn't have been so why should a team get some extra credit for having beaten them before their true colors showed and they dropped out of the pool? they don't.

I've been hearing all year that the ACC is down but yet looking at conference ratings of Ken Pomeroy and Sagarin, the ACC is 1 and 2 respectively. The Big 12 is 1 and 2 and Big East is 3 and Big Ten is 4. Does the committee look at these ratings and RPI more heavily than rankings when it comes time to seed.

the acc is 1 or 2 because it doesn't really have a bottom pulling its ratings down. having the likes of depaul, rutgers, indiana, iowa or lsu drags the whole conference down. the acc doesn't have a team under .500 and the worst teams still are decent (bc, nc st and uva).

the acc also doesn't have much at the top, but that's another discussion.

well, when the #1 team, duke, gets blown out by probably the 5th best BE team and then loses to probably the 4th best B10 team, it's hard to see them as even close to the top of the BE and B10.

the #2 team, maryland, likewise lost to wisconsin and also lost to villanova and cincy (they did beat bottom dweller indiana!) and none of these 3 games was close.

so, the 2 best teams in the acc were a combined 0-3 against NCAAT teams in the BE and B10 and lost another game to NIT-bound cincy. most of the top 50 wins you mention were just wins within the ACC. it's hard to argue that the top of the ACC is truly elite when the best OOC win by its top 2 teams is to gonzaga on a neutral court when gonzaga's best player was semi coherent with a lingering concussion.

Another issue with the various conference ratings, etc. is that they are necessarily self-fulfilling, and further, highly dependent on where you slot teams at the beginning of the season. Example: If you put Miami (FL) as your preseason #1 (yes, I know, nobody is, but just go with me on this for a sec), and then Miami goes on to have a perfect 14-0 start prior to league play beginning, then in most situations they will be the #1 ranked or at least very highly (top 5-10) ranked team going into the league season. Then, when they go on to go 4-12 in conference, all of the other teams in the conference benefit (i.e., get pulled up) from beating them. Meanwhile Miami does not go down as far/fast, since they are being beaten by highly ranked teams.

Just my 2 cents, and any computer ranking system is going to be prone to distortion, but it would be an interesting experiment if you took any of the various computer ranking systems and ran exactly the same season results, but with an inverse starting order (that is, take the actual #1 and put it as the #341 or whatever and just flip the entire starting table). I guarantee that your results would not look the same as they do now.

OK, guys, in light of the lack of bid-stealing, etc., is it too early to contemplate a 3 bid Pac-10? I know that we all have been ripping on them all season, and for fairly good reason. However, seeing as I have no faith in either OleMiss or Miss.St. beating Florida and Tenn, and assuming that there are no big surprises coming out of the Big10 or BigEast tourneys (especially after UConn has flamed out), and considering that there are really not too many bubble teams in the Big12 or ACC (GaTech maybe, but they are in total disarray at the moment), it seems that the door is open for Cal, UWash and ASU all getting in (even though Wash and ASU are likely playing in the semis and last I checked there is no way under the rules for both to win that game). Thoughts B101?

The question was about what the committee uses not whether you agree with the statistics that the ACC conference is a better conference than the BE and B10.

The rankings are very subjective and you see teams that are much higher in the rankings than their RPIs like an Ohio State and a Michigan State and others that are much lower than their respective RPIs like a Northern Iowa and a Texas A&M.

My personal guess is that Washington and Arizona State are really playing a knockout game. Right now, it does seem like they could get both get in, and South Florida seems to be disappearing as a legit option as I type this, but I still think something funny is going to happen in some of these tournaments. The bid stealers aren't there yet, but I'm thinking UTEP, Utah State, one of the Big Three in A-10, one of the Big Three in the MWC is going to falter and close up some of these seemingly open bubble spots. I could see the Pac-10 getting three if some team knocks of Cal in the semis and then the ASU/Washington winner in the finals. Only one from ASU/Washington, but 3 Pac-10 teams.

Understood, but looking back at the long-since written off Pac 10, it seems that both Washington and ASU have (1) righted the ship and (2) avoided the kind of stupid in-conference losses that the rest of the bubblers are taking. In last 10 games, both are 8-2. ASU has only lost to Wash and Cal-Berkeley. Washington losses were at Cal and by 3 to USC. Each are right around the 50 mark in RPI, which is significantly better than Illinois, Miss, St.Louis, Minn, MissSt, etc. South Florida is gone -- playing the seniors and subs now. Seems that competitive bubblers are dropping like flies.

Seriously, assuming (1) each of UW and ASU win their first round Pac-10 tourney games and (2) there are not too many surprises out of the other BCS tourneys, then I think that the Pac-10 could be a 3-bid league.

"The question was about what the committee uses not whether you agree with the statistics that the ACC conference is a better conference than the BE and B10."

um, no. the question was why the ACC is ranked 1/2 and if the committee accounts for that. i was explaining why the ACC is 1/2 despite not having done much OOC. if you swap out nc st and uva with depaul and rutgers, the ACC wouldn't be 1/2 anymore and neither nc st nor uva is in the discussion for bids.

The computer rankings won't have different end of season rankings if you started them in a different order. Pomeroy starts all the teams at 0. Sagarin has a preseason value that gets gradually removed over the season, and is non-existent at the end of the season.

I think Georgetown actually gets on the end of the 4 line tonight, passing Tennessee. I think they are also ahead of Wisconsin, too. They probably fell a little too far out of a (perfectly reasonable) concern they were collapsing, but with the convincing wins over Cincy & S Fla, they should be back to their true S-curve spot (14 or so). If they lose tomorrow -- I think they end up at the bottom of 4/top of 5 depending on other results from the weekend. If they win -- I have to believe they are back in the 3 discussion.

We can't believe we're typing this, but a three-bid Pac-10 is a possibility at this point. The two scenarios discussed so far (Cal loses in the semis and that team beats ASU/Wash in the final...or...Cal loses to ASU/Wash and the ASU/Wash loser gets in anyway) would only happen if favorites continue to win at the rate they are now, but it could happen.

B101: I'll take it one step further -- I think that the Wash/ASU loser has a 50/50 shot to get in even if Cal wins the Pac-10 tourney. Again, though, with your same proviso that the favorites continue to win at the rate they are now.

And remember the out-of-the-blue bid to Arizona a couple of years ago? True, no Lute Olson factor, but I am sure the Committee would not be entirely opposed to getting a southern California / Arizona geographic area representative into the tourney. Right now they have only San Diego St (who ASU has already beaten) unless one wants to consider UNLV as that area. TV ratings and filling the arenas are clearly not totally irrelevant.

Mag, obviously it nots going to matter....that's the point. If b101 has the official bracket right now....nobody scares me at all. Syracuse would scare, and kansas would. That's it...ky is too young to pose a threat to md

I am a biased big ten fan, and I know your purpose is to pick the likely field and not necessarily judge talent, but cannot it be conceded that the big east is far overrated and the big ten underrated, in your analysis? Why was the Big Ten 5-2 overall against the Big East this year, 4-2 against Big East teams you put in the 64, and 3-1 in games where Big Ten teams not slated to make it played the Big East (Indiana v. Pitt, Northwestern v. Notre Dame, Michigan v. Marguette, and Michigan v. Connecticut). I'm not saying Indiana or Northwestern make it in, but I've got seven Big Ten in (the four plus Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois) before I have 9 Big East in. I'd put my money on those seven going 6-1 versus your Big East nine not doing better than 5-4 in the first round. I do not think you can be serious about putting less than 5 Big Ten through or more than 7 Big East, even while adhering to your purpose and design.

You can't just a team off of one head-to-head match-up. I'm a huge Big 10 fan and have been my entire life, but the Big 10 blows this year. I actually believe the Big 10 teams who are seeded are probably seeded too high. Their record means very little when the poor performance of the conference is considered. 4 of the 11 teams are below .500!

Also UConn is not in the tourny. Their season ending losing streak kept them out.

I didn't say I'd have Michigan in, I just said I'd have Michigan in (and 7 from Big Ten) before I'd have 9 from the big east (meaning that I would have neither event). Rather, the Big East should have 7, and the Big Ten should have 5 or 6 depending on how teams do this weekend. Think what you will, and I see that most are retreating at least from South Florida, but the Big Ten will outperform the Big East in the tournament. The Big East basically massages itself all year into high RPIs, and then it will show its true lack of strength in the tournament. I hope they get 9 in, so all can see how that conference really blows. Give me a shout back in a few weeks.

Bracketology 101 has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal and on ESPN Radio affiliates across the country. The site is designed to serve as a more reliable, more accurate alternative to the Bracketology selections of other major sports websites.
Rather than predict teams based on the season ending today, or make wild predictions of the future, Bracketology 101 uses a unique "projection-prediction" method of selecting teams, giving fans a much more realistic idea of where their favorite teams stand in the eyes of the selection committee.
While other bracketologists favor conferences or teams or rely entirely on RPI rankings in making their picks, we factor in a team's resume as a whole - big wins, bad losses, in and out-of-conference wins, upcoming schedules, conference tournament sites, and each team's overall strengths and weaknesses compared to other teams on the bubble. Our "Field of 68" is updated every Monday throughout the season, with daily updates coming during Championship Week.

Join The B101 Team!

Do you want to advertise on Bracketology 101 during March Madness? Do you want to sponsor one of our upcoming daily brackets? E-mail us at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com for ad rates and details.

Follow B101 On Twitter

Bracketology 101 is now on Twitter! To follow B101 on Twitter, just click on the Twitter logo above.

How B101 Stacks Up

The numbers speak for themselves: Over the last five years, Bracketology 101 is the most accurate bracketology site on the Internet. We produced the best bracket in 2006, the second best in 2007 and 2008, and the fifth best in 2009. We are the only bracketologists to produce a Top 5 bracket four of the last five years. No other bracketologist has placed in the Top 5 more than twice. For a complete breakdown of our bracket stats from the last four years, click on the “We’re #1!” logo above.

The 40-60 Club

On top of correctly predicting 64 of the 65 tournament teams in 2008, Bracketology 101 also became the first bracketology site to ever seed 40 teams exactly and 60 teams within one seed line of their actual seed. Through 2010, we are the only bracketology site to earn this distinction.